/lit/ - Literature

>>22899449
>https://voca.ro/14ukDD0jjFDJ

>>18254500
>philosphy
>there are no games
>what the author wants to say isnt shrouded in dialogues and useless absurdities

>>16790080
>Paying for someone else to stand up for you because you're to limp dicked to admit your dad's a loser.

>>16790091
I think most would settle for 'Dude, your dad's a fucking loser. Imagine thinking Kingdom Hearts but in book for is a good idea.'

>Atlasdam

>>11146727
>Most third-world countries, especially African ones, would be better off under colonialism.

oh no youre retarded

>>8810753
>It takes a lot of luck
>I'm not confident in simply getting lucky with an agent

Boyoboy, we're back to >>8810723 again. I'm looking for an attack surface. Avenues I can exploit that don't solely rely on a no-shot query letter. I was almost starting to think that /lit/ could read, there.

>mfw this is exactly the kind of data-collecting thread that Martin Shekeli is after

The part of this that is at all /lit/-related, which I'm frankly shocked that no one here has thought to bring up, is the postmodern infusion of the Monty Hall Problem with our collective discourse. Aren't we to the point in societal progress where every elementary schooler is shown this problem on their teacher's sub-day? Then consider Monty "The Deal Man" Hall's competing motivations: 1) trick you into picking the goat to save the TV show money, and 2) get you to guess the correct door with the car to make for a more crowd-pleasing finale. In a double-blind reveal it may be true that you have a higher chance of winning by switching doors, but surely the show producers must know that you are more likely to switch.

Fuck all of your objective probability theory, it's unnuanced to the point of being unapplicable. I'm even a STEMlord and I see this.